Sri Manoj Kansal Vs Icici Bank Ltd.

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA A. QUASH THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 BANK DATED 09/09/2025 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE E AND PASS ANY SUCH ORDER, DIRECTIONS, JUDGEMENT AS MAY BE DEEMED NECESSARY BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:15674 WP No. 31327 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶36

prayers:

¶37

“a. Quash the possession notice issued by Respondent No.1 bank dated 09/09/2025 produced at ANNEXURE E.

¶38

. Pass any such order, directions, judgment as may be deemed necessary by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of this case in the interests of justice and equity.”

¶39

It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners of the apartment bearing No. B-210, Block-B, situated on the 2nd Floor of Lotus Palace Apartment, measuring 1330 sq. ft., along with a covered car parking space, constructed on Sy. Nos. 1/3, 1/4 and 1/5, having BBMP Khata No. 4047, situated at Kasavanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. It is submitted that an e-Khata was issued in favour of the petitioners on 02.08.2025 and they have been regularly paying property taxes. The petitioners have let out the said property on rent since the year 2021 and have been receiving rental income. To the surprise of the petitioners, on

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15674 WP No. 31327 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

09.09.2025, a possession notice issued by ICICI Bank was affixed on the petitioners property, stating that symbolic possession of the property had been taken by the Bank in exercise of its powers under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The notice further discloses that one Roddam Naga Shiva Shankar and Shankar Madhavi had availed a loan and were required to repay an amount of Rs.32,21,113/-. It is submitted that the petitioners have no knowledge of the said persons and they are in no way concerned with the said loan amount. It is further submitted that the petitioners had earlier filed a complaint against the builder and a charge sheet has also been filed in that regard. The builder has, in turn, filed W.P. No. 2569/2024. It is further submitted that all the original title deeds pertaining to the subject property are in the possession of the petitioners. The petitioners have not availed any loan from ICICI Bank, nor have they created any security interest over the said property in favour of any person. The Encumbrance Certificate for the period from 02.01.2019 to 04.06.2025 reflects only the sale deed executed by the builder in favour of the petitioners. In the above circumstances, the petitioners have come up before this Court.

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15674 WP No. 31327 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are completely unconnected with the said loan transaction and the borrowers. It is further submitted that, unless the relevant details are furnished, the petitioners would not be in a position to avail appropriate remedies, which has made them the filing of the present writ petition.

¶46

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the relevant details have been furnished to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners before this Court. It is further submitted that the loan was availed in the year 2015 and that the names mentioned in the possession notice are those of the borrowers who had availed the said loan.

¶47

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record.

¶48

The grievance of the petitioners is that they are unconnected with the loan transaction and that all original title deeds are in their possession and that they have let out the property on rent. The petitioners contend that they were taken by surprise how they have received the possession notice

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:15674 WP No. 31327 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, and that they

¶52

were not aware of the particulars relating to the borrowers. Now that the learned counsel for the respondent has furnished the relevant details pertaining to the borrowers, the petitioners are in possession of the necessary information. Therefore, the petitioners can avail the appropriate remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedies before the DRT in accordance with law.

¶55

ii. The interim order granted on 20.11.2025 shall continue to be in force for a period of 8 weeks from today.

¶56

iii. Pending IAs., if any, shall stand closed.

¶57

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶58

SMC, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Sri Manoj Kansal v. Icici Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manoj Kansal v. Icici Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suneetha M Vs Icici Bank Ltd.

M/S Roopesh Provision Stores Vs the Authorized Officer

Shoba Bai Vs the Union Bank of India

Sree Banashankari Meenugarara Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha R Vs State of Karnataka

Bhaskara Naika Vs State of Karnataka

Prakash J Vs the Senior Manager Punjab National Bank